I am returning to disclose a problem, its solution and contribute a few more thoughts. My book Absolute Truth was previously not properly formatted so it did not download [well]. This problem has been solved. Just ignore the ‘go-to’ pages previously announced on the “Explicit Absolute Truths” thread below.

What made the formatting awkward was a large number of diagrams that had to be adjusted to fit the stipulations of SmashWords and CreateSpace. Diagrams carry the metaphysic. I will discuss this feature.

Appearances and Reality
What we see and what is true, generally agree, but appearances are not reality and truth does not grasp reality. Reality is the connectedness of appearances. Knowledge of connections requires knowledge of immanence. Empiricism’s propensity to divide and analyse is diametric to connectivity, which means metaphysics cannot be an extension of objectivity. To present reality a metaphysician has to organise appearances into a coherent whole – which is one reason why diagrams are indispensable. The diagrammatic presentation that is real will be political because social organisation objectively defines our reality. The presentation is an absolute Truth.

It is a serious mistake to think that reality can be ascertained by objectivity. Appearances are not the product of objectivity. Our world is organised by immanence. You cannot see immanence, so it is a blunder to assume the generative cause is identical to the apparent effect.

You will be aware that contemporary philosophy is going no-where. The reason is, as stated: appearances are not the product of objectivity and objectivity is the only tool philosophy has. Philosophy is arrested by the success of science. All academics are accredited and qualified to think objectively. With its emphasis on analysis and proof, conventional philosophy is a hopeless, reductive situation. The very instant a thinker focuses and comments, he repeats the habitual subject – predicate error.

Metaphysics has been restrained by the enormity of the package it must deliver. Ontology is metaphysics’ Mt. Everest, yet it is not enough to climb ‘Mt. Ontology’, because success with ontology leaves ethics in limbo and history unaccounted for. If one does not do history, one cannot do culture, leaving ontology as another go-nowhere topic.

Absolute Truth reveals what is wrong with objectivity. Yes, truth is relative, but more to the point, truth is partial. Relativity suggests the prospect of synthesis, but partiality is bias. Half-truths are well known, but I cannot think of a clear example of truth versus truth, or truth contradicting truth, because ethics normally intervenes. If ethics did not prevail we might better understand the limitations of truth and appreciate the need for metaphysics.

Ordinary truths may be endorsed [as true] by absolute Truths, but truths are never capable of being organised, i.e. aggregated, into Truths.

If you want to know what I am talking about, the first 20% of the ebook is free and includes political Truths.

Ontology
Ontology is the master topic of philosophy and the better part of metaphysics. You will not be patently told this in any text book, but it stands to reason. Ontology is about ‘being’ / our existence. It is the only topic capable of eliciting absolute Truth. It starkly seeks to know what is fundamental and causal, [which are synonymous].

Ontology directly involves political Truths, psychology and religious Truth. Ontology’s importance is monolithic, but, like a colossus in the desert, it demands a narrative -- something more must be said. Ontology’s ‘narrative’ is teleology, i.e. context for ontology is derived from history.

When one knows the answer to ‘being’, one realises that ontology is beyond prose. Prose explains what diagrams present, but prose is not perceptive for reasons previous covered.

Non-duality
Heavy-weight metaphysics, i.e. absolute Idealism, is non-dualistic. How might we think in a non-dualistic manner? The only option is to think with diagrams. Diagrams are invaluable to present electrical circuitry. Reality is like circuitry and in both cases prose cannot do the same job as diagrams. This is not the place to discuss this departure from the norm in depth but I will emphasis relationships.

The whole point of metaphysics is to establish relationships that constitute an unchanging whole / Truth. When a Truth is found, it will synthesis reciprocals. Reciprocals are never truths: man is the reciprocal of woman, but man is not the truth of woman. That is the difference between dualistic and non-dualistic reasoning. Connections and relationships are definitive of non-duality

Absolute Truths do not express meaning and they cannot be proved. The attributes of dualistic truth are not amplified nor endorsed by Truth. Metaphysical logic squares with the etymology of logic. Nothing joins dialectic to logic.

Once it is obvious that truth is not capable of being Truth, it is also evident that the inadequacies of truth afforded ethics the opportunity to arise. The epitome of duality is ethics and nothing that is absolute supports goodness, values or ethics.

Absolute Idealism
This is the nub of absolute Idealism: society is the objectification of what is True of the individual.

G W F Hegel understood this as a mystical experience. I came to this insight via my version of logic, its application to politics and extrapolations with the aid of Jungian archetypes.

The above maxim is the most seminal Idea in philosophy. Its implications cannot be intuited by dialectical reasoning. Were it possible to naively grasp its Truth and implications, academics would have answered their question: What is civil society? In the same vein: What is normality? These are not radical topics, but they demand a radical answer.

Because the nation—individual relationship is absolute, there arise religious connotations. The relationship affords Idealism access to the creative cause and hence religion. Religion has no notion of this Truth, but where the mundane reciprocates our Absolute, rationalising meets mysticism.

Politics, religion, psychology, history and ethics are the ‘human-interest’ aspects of philosophy. Add absolute logic, Truth and consciousness, and there is nothing intellectually more thrilling than absolute Idealism.

I hope readers will take the opportunity to read my book. I will make myself available here to answer questions. As stated in my earlier topic, I will not write essays on politics because political Truths are too involved, but I will answer questions that arise from the politics in my book.

Immanuel Kant made the distinction between analytical a priori concepts and synthetic a priori concepts. All actualities have a priori. “Actualities” is a careful avoidance of “realities”. Reality is different for objectivists and metaphysicians. Actualities are real for objectivists and actualities are parts of reality for metaphysicians. Synthetic a priori are the point of interest. A metaphysician needs to define them.

The predicate of an analytic proposition is contained in its subject concept, such as "All bachelors are unmarried". Analytical a priori are not exciting! A synthetic proposition is one whose predicate is not contained in its subject. Synthetic a priori contain ‘new’ knowledge arising from the synthesis of actualities. Synthetic means going where dialectic / duality / received reasoning cannot go. Analysis / analytic is reductive. Synthetic is synthesis and that is entirely a new function in philosophy.

Because he aspired to be transcendent, Kant wanted to be a metaphysician. However, he was not prepared to adopt that stance on the assumption that metaphysics was an authentic stance; he wanted to ‘prove’ metaphysics was authentic. Synthetic a priori propositions were the grounds on which he determined he could base metaphysics. Kant was not successful, but he was close to realising his ambition.

Discussion about analytical a priori only help to provide contrast to synthetic a priori. Once synthetic a priori are shown to exist the intellectual landscape is totally rearranged.

What we need to get sorted immediately is mathematical propositions being analytical. The answer to a mathematical question is not ‘new’ knowledge in philosophical terms. Kant thought maths might be indicative of synthetic propositions, but they are analytical. Maths does not fulfill what is implicit to synthesis. Maths follows rules of deduction and the answer is a matter of following the rules. Synthesis has no initial rules: either the components combine and reveal something new, or the components remain discrete. Later the synthesis has to express logic and that is the ultimate rule.

The above is the theory of a priori as simply as I can explain it. There are a few minor points.

Metaphysics and epistemology share an interest in a priori knowledge and ostensibly, i.e. as it appears to the innocent observer of which philosophy has many, more points of interest await, but there is nothing mutual between metaphysics and epistemology. Analytical, epistemic a priori and synthetic, metaphysical a priori are worlds apart. Metaphysical logic is without meaning or proof. Without meaning and proof, epistemology is redundant.

Let us not get concerned for epistemology. Epistemology gains nothing from ethics, and given ethics prominence this is cause for unease. It is metaphysics that establishes that goodness does not exist and ethics is an illusion. It is consistent with not existing, that ethics fails to contribute to epistemology, yet epistemology is totally incapable of establishing the unreality of ethics. Equally, sceptics cannot establish the unreality of ethics, but they are sure metaphysics is dodgy – I love the relativity of the denizens of Relativity

It would seem edifying to start a discussion thread around the validity of a priori concepts, but the exercise is doomed. Analytical a priori attracts the attention of formal logicians who pronounce upon “A = A”, and they think they are wonderful. When it comes to synthetic a priori one is lucky if someone with metaphysical instincts is present to try to explain what ‘synthetic’ means and why the “A = A” brigade are out of their depth. ‘Common-sense’ heroes see their chance, and exercise their obligation, to denounce metaphysics, and all-together nothing is progressed.

As said, the problem with synthetic a priori rests with the need for a metaphysician to produce a clear example.

Synthetic a priori concepts are one of a variety of ways of exploring the potential alleged to exist in metaphysics. Synonyms include non-duality, metaphysical logic, absolute Truth, transcendence and wholeness. Amongst these ideas, synthetic a priori concept is the most sophisticated way of speculating on the prospects of metaphysics. They are all useful in different ways in concocting an absolute answer.

The next useful idea is wholeness. It alludes to the need to assemble concepts to make a whole. That is basically what I did in politics and it transpired that politics was the only place where this was possible and consequential. As I have said, my assemblage was arranged diagrammatically and this form of expression is non-dualistic. The implication of the diagram was the transcendence of ideology. It consists of actualities, embraces viewpoints, and is a Truth because it is not objectively true.

In regards to the rules that follow, the diagram’s logic has to be abstracted to see if it has metaphysical ‘bones and breeding’, and this logic has to be extrapolated to see if the Truths it discloses are sensible. Otherwise it all ends in a reductio ad absurdum.

Either a mighty system is born by synthesis or you do not hear about it. Either immanence as a realm of connected synthetic a priori is revealed, and that is an intellectual wonderland, or the exercise is nonsense. Initially nothing directs, guides or rules over what one does to synthesise, but it has to come out full of revelation about existence.

In the course of synthesising a metaphysical sensation it is perfectly OK to demolish the analytical opposition. As said here and as previously written below, my main target is ethics and values. Let me know if you find the a priori of goodness, because then you can resurrect ethics.

Absolute Idealism achieves its raison d’etre by being non-dualistic. Non-dualistic thinking is facilitated with diagrams. An analogy is depictions of electrical circuitry. Prose cannot do the same job as a circuitry diagram and the same is true for Truth.

All Truths synthesise existential reciprocals. Synthesis is the missing function in philosophy and ontology can only be presented via diagrams. The verity of a diagram lies in its underlying logic.

A major difference between duality and non-duality is the absence of subjects in non-duality. There is no focus to the interaction of reciprocals; no focus means no subject. Reciprocals are the reason for the famous void that confounds dualistic / dialectic thinking about mysticism. Dichotomies do not have foci. And yes, Idealism rationalises mysticism.

Here are five reasons why diagrams precede knowledge of ontological Truths;
1. Sentences have subjects and predicates, which makes sentences useless. Once a Truth is presented in diagrammatic form, prose can begin.
2. The amount of information contained in a diagram makes sentences hopeless. Relationships are cardinal and may involve three-dimensions. The connotation of a diagram has to be presented in one, incisive statement. Prose cannot do that.
3. Truths have dimension and sentences are one-dimensional.
4. Sentences are instantly reductive / analytical. What is a subject without a predicate?
5. Idealism is intent upon synthesis – the process diametric to analytical knowledge.

The gulf between mysticism and duality is due to the above irreconcilable differences.

But, somewhat cynical I admit, I'd suggest that your whole theorem became rather awkward with its strong reliance on diagrams.
It would take some effort to thoroughly challenge your belief that synthesis "can only be presented via diagrams". Yes I do believe it's a fallacy and your Achilles heel. And therefore for me possibly the most interesting point of contention.

As for a strategy on such discussion, I'll have to think a bit more on it. You probably should enable email notification on a thread update :)

I have edited and rewritten a few of my earlier essays. This is one of the more important.

Ontology

Metaphysics is about what is pre-ordained, in time and being. Alternatively stated, metaphysics studies processes antecedent to appearances. Pre-ordination cannot be seen, so it is futile to try to do metaphysics with dialectic. Metaphysics is mostly ontology, and metaphysics with a logic is portentous.

Ontology is the master topic of philosophy. You will not be patently told this in any text book because Idealism has to first take control. Ontology is about ‘being’ / our existence. It is entirely absolute Truths and it is the only topic capable of eliciting absolute Truth. Ontology involves political Truths, Jungian psychology and mysticism. Its scope is incomparable, yet it is succinct on account of the diagrams used to present it.

Thanks to G. W. F. Hegel, absolute Idealism is a school with a pre-conception about ontology. From a mystical experience, Hegel deduced this maxim: the nation is the objectification of what is True of the individual. I affirm the maxim.

The maxim is the most seminal idea in philosophy.

The Idealist Model of Reality

Ontology is the creative and immanent causes that precede appearances. As an inductive process it is:

Creative cause --> immanence --> appearances

Idealists seek to first know immanence, then the creative cause based on synthesis. The nation and the individual are mutually dependent. Political traits and psychological symbols, i.e. objectivity and subjectivity, are associated to build a schema greater than the sum of the parts.

Jungian psychology plumbs the same depths as the Truths revealed in the first two Posts. It is genuinely, ‘depth psychology’.

Because the nation—individual relationship is absolute, there arise religious connotations, which afford Idealism access to the creative cause; the ability to take religious connotations from ideas about immanence, is due to the schema being “greater than the sum of the parts”.

Clues
The tracing of the above, inductive process begins with the discovery of metaphysical logic. Everything bears the imprint of logic, because logic made it, but it is exceeding hard to find logic in appearances. One of two big clues to logic is male—female. However, this way-out-in-the-open, absolute dichotomy does not connect to another similar dichotomy, to suggest what immanence is.

The second clue is the resolution of political economy. This dualism involving capitalism and socialism must be reinterpreted as a dichotomy. When these ideologies are reconciled, logic is found.

The cover of my book has a motif that expresses three, serial syntheses. Ontology is three syntheses which I will outline.

I. The first synthesis, the bottom synthesis, identifies Truth in appearances. It concerns capitalism—socialism.

The gathering-in of Truth occurs through the transcendence of political ideology. Every ideology rests on some part of the political economic whole. Ideologies combine political economic activity with values. The Truth of political economy is found by eschewing values and recognising actualities.

National Mind is the conditions for civil society. Individual Mind is basic human nature. The metaphysics of the individual’s affinity with society are drawn from correspondence between archetypes and institutions. The nation / society has been the objectification of human nature from the first polity. The rationalising of this Truth realises the transcendence of politics.

III. The third synthesis is the creative cause. It concerns logos—Absolute Mind.

The creative cause is an interaction between the logos and Absolute Mind. The logos is latent Mind. Absolute Mind is the universe. Thus creation is a dynamic based on the differentiation of the unmanifested—manifested. An analogue of this foremost dichotomy is seed—fruit.

The progressing of Idealism causes the regression of duality. Three aspects of duality are terminated by logic: ethics, monism [God] and religion as faith. Ontology denies the existence of goodness. Monism is replaced with dichotomous monism. Religion as faith is replaced by esoteric religion.

The above outlines how logic is found in appearances and logic oversees the construction of immanence. Not explained is how logic finds the logos to become reconciled with its etymological root. The uniting of logic with logos entitles absolute Idealism to change the definition of logic.

It is simpler to acquaint ones-self with my Idealism than try to follow an overview because Idealism involves real logic. I may be digging a theoretical hole, but the following is Absolute Idealism by a definitive Idealist, and that is a first. Every dialectical attempt to explain Idealism is hopeless and I will explain why next time.

Absolute Idealism

Absolute Idealism seeks the natural order. To go straight to work, it is found with ontology and teleology. They are reciprocals. This pairing may be perceived as being—time, i.e. existence includes history. Ontology—teleology encapsulates Idealism’s biggest idea: culture. Absolute Idealism is non-hierarchical, so political aspects of culture do not elevate government.

G. W. F Hegel [1770 – 1831] laid the [speculative] foundations of absolute Idealism. He unsuccessfully sought a metaphysical logic for ontology and his teleology asserted dialectical movement. Dialectical movement is the distinctive idea of this school. R. L. Cameron [1951 -] found the required logic, defined ontology and completed teleology with an additional theory about historical development that works in tandem with dialectical movement.

Ontology is the National Mind—Individual Mind relationship presented in my previous essay.

National Mind and Individual Mind were constructed by the interplay between political actualities and psychological symbols. The associations are so accurate, immanence reveals a deeper, creative dimension. Investigation of the creative cause, rationalises the logos, entitling Idealism to redefine and receive logic.

In my first essay, I established how Idealism was more abstract than empiricism. The creative cause is further removed: empiricism is one level of abstraction, immanence a second level and the creative cause is a third level of abstraction.

Teleology is determinism in history. The West, alone, has completed its teleology. This achievement was necessary for ontology to be recognised. Teleology is a development that empiricists cannot believe possible. Purposefulness is found in metaphysical ‘patterns in history’. They constitute evidence of the miraculous – a World-spirit has overseen human affairs. Teleology adds the historical dimension to the narrative of a nation’s development.

While Idealism rationalises mysticism and mysticism is appropriate training for an Idealist, “the nation as the objectification of what is True of the individual” was never mystical lore. Idealism found commonality with mysticism by being logical. By following a putative, absolute logic and working with its Truths, a rendezvous with the logos was possible if the presumed logic was authentic. Absolute relationships converge on the logos since it creates them, and logical accuracy had its reward in reaching the logos.

Idealism ends ideology. Liberalism warranted analysis for metaphysical components. The components survive as aspects of National Mind, but liberalism is lost because it is predicated on values. National Mind is the absolute basis for peace.

The demise of dualistic ideas and institutions that contradict non-duality is inevitable. Ontology denies the existence of goodness, so ethics has to go. Monism is replaced with dichotomous monism. Then it follows that religion as faith is replaced by esoteric religion.

Idealism restarts philosophy, instigates new priorities and defines what philosophy is. Relativistic studies such as empiricism will continue, but crucially, the dethronement of duality is effected. Our future existence depends on connections and this is precisely what non-duality consists of.

The following is about mis-representation of Idealism by scholars and what prepares a definitive Idealist.

Encyclopaedic entries for Idealism brings out heroic scholarship that produces no light. Academics attempting to explain Idealism do a disservice by being their conformist selves. The key fact pertaining to Idealism, which is never mentioned, is that G. W. F. Hegel, sought a new logic. A new logic separates Idealism from the rest of philosophy.

A new logic is not like a different language. Nor is a new logic a ‘quantum shift’. A quantum shift is just a ‘step-up’. A new logic generates a new consciousness and realises a new reality. Hence, Idealism cannot to be critiqued until it becomes definitive, and when definitiveness arrives, dialectic is definitely not in a position to judge.

Encyclopaedic entries begin by explaining Idealism as a philosophy based on the premise that “reality is related to the contents of our mind”. It is a basic tenet, and I affirm it, but it is not a helpful tenet. It is no place to start, yet it gives a clear signal that dialectic will not serve as a mode of inquiry.

The nub of Idealism is: “The nation is the objectification of what is True of the individual.” Until this maxim is rationalised there is no merit in remembering wannabe Idealists. Between 1831, when Hegel died, and now, there are Idealism-related names. They did nothing to illuminate the above maxim, and the scholarship that records their efforts entrenches dialectical convention.

Consistent with the tradition of ‘fair-minded-ness’, scholars offer criticisms of Idealism. The negative opinions of B. Russell and G. E. Moore are sometimes used for this purpose. Idealism’s scholars do not realise that any valid criticism of Idealism automatically means the end of Idealism. To be absolute, Idealism must be beyond criticism, to the strictest degree. Idealism cannot afford to realise an antithesis. A valid argument – not necessarily a winning argument – is sufficient to be an antithesis and nullify Idealism. That, and not the criticisms of B. Russell and G. E. Moore is the issue. With such gaffes, conventional minds demonstrate how poorly metaphysics is perceived and how much they are captives of empiricism.

2. Idealism is a school of thought that does not benefit from schooling! A candidate for Idealism, upon realising that conventional philosophy is useless, teaches himself mysticism and tries to find Truth. My success with ontology was due to being oblivious of Hegel’s ontology [which was un successful], and like I said, ontology is the master topic.

Amateurism is at the crux of the “What is philosophy about?” question. Philosophy is about Truth. Originality cannot be taught, so don’t learn philosophy. At this point in time when the world needs a genuine, absolute polestar, the history of philosophy is not fertile ground. The Absolute has been left to amateurs to find, since academics are too conventional to find it, and only an amateur is not “corrupted” by having to think a certain way to gain credentials.

That brings another problem. I am an amateur and know from experience academics are not interested in amateurs who claim to know the Absolute. Either they don’t believe you, or they do not want to believe you. Therefore, I must go where philosophy is not institutionalised and that means internet philosophy.

3. Logical diagrams are totally original, and thus is born non-duality. More originality than work with diagrams was required, because logic is not a case of doing the objectively-obvious. Definitive Idealism is the joining of disparate topics like politics and archetypes. This is not what convention teaches. Scholars don’t look for subjectivity in dimensions deeper than empiricism. They have no examples of metaphysical syntheses so they cannot imagine such possibilities. Scepticism of metaphysics thus become reassuring and reinforcing. The existence of mystics should be encouraging, but convention has extinguished their ability to be exceedingly original.

When minds concentrate on what philosophy is about, there is no escaping this edict: Philosophy is the captive of logic. Logic is the Way of the logos and it should impart absolute Truth. The Absolute is what matters.

Dialectic is not logic, so philosophy has been lead all over the place. Let us take a quick tour of dualistic philosophy.

In politics, the key question is, “What is civil society?” This has not been answered because the answer is absolute. [You will find the answer in the free 20% download as Figure 1.6. The logic of democratic capitalism.] The answer to the above question solves the ideology question.

Ideology is based on ethics, i.e. what is good in regards to political economy? Political economy is an existential issue and no-one backs objective truth to do the business. The absolute answer to the ‘civil society’ question also puts ethics ‘to bed’. Actually, ‘gives ethics the boot’ is more to the point.

History only gets interesting when Idealism holding forth about great designs. The rest is third division arguments about Hitler’s diaries – you know what I mean – arguments over the objective facts of history. After Idealism, historicism is a place for researchers.

Epistemology enjoys its prominence because objective truth is a dodgy quantity. Epistemology cannot straighten-out ethics, so how can it hope to sort out truth?

Empiricism is sound in pure science. It will happily continue until the planet is wrecked. In social science it is not so reliable. Results can be challenged and I offer election polling as typical of empiricism in human affairs.

So-called formal logic is lineal, mad, sad and hopeless.

You do realise that existentialists are not serious?

What the general populous wants from philosophy is absolute Truth. Only absolute Truth will earn respect and attract interest. I cannot envisage another development capturing the public’s interest. {Please contribute if you have an alternative.}

Dialectical inquiry into an absolute phenomenon is futile. There is no merit in political philosophy probing civil society. Existentialists focusing on ‘being’ are ineffectual. The search for truth about objective reality is twice deluded. Dialectic is immersed in appearances. Its truths are relative and limited by truth being a human concept.

The task is to transcend. Do we collectively recognise this? Have we given up on ethics and truth? “The times are a-changing”. The media currently enjoys calling this a post-truth age, given the style of Donald Trump. This is worth more than a smile. Topics on this forum are post-truth. Many times over, the proposer of a topic cannot anticipate a conclusive truth.

Dark horse and only horse
Philosophy needs a logic that squares with its etymology. Can requisites be more simple and complex? Idealism is the only branch of philosophy that seeks another logic; Idealism is the dark horse and only horse in the race.

Nailed to the door of philosophy departments, how would this assertion fare?

The Void
Absolute Truth is and is-not. Parts to a whole share their existence with non-existence [there is a void].

In absolute terms, the opposite of something is not nothingness. An absolute proposition cannot afford an antithesis, and even ‘nothingness’ serves as an antithesis. Appearances and the void co-exist. The co-existence of the void with appearances is a mystical axiom and persons who know only objectivity are intrigued by this possibility.

Reality is due to dichotomies, i.e. yin—yang. When inquiring into a phenomenon we are apt to seek a monist cause. Of the individual we seek a self, but no centre of activity actually exists. This is True of ourselves as mind—body and it is True of Mind as the source of existence.

Dichotomous causation accommodates something and nothingness. The key question: What is the focus of a dichotomy? A dichotomy is without a focus, i.e. it is something and nothing.

The something—nothing dichotomy is incidental to things existential. Something and nothing are not causing creation, e.g. something is not yin and nothingness is not yang. Personally, the explanation for the void is not fascinating. There are more important relationships to take cognition of, but the ability to accommodate the void helps establish my bona fides.

No Proof
Absolute Truth cannot be proved.

Absolute Truth is not accompanied by proof. Proof is attendant upon objective truth, but nothing can be ancillary to Truth, i.e. nothing can be outside of the Absolute.

Conventional thinkers will think that an absolute proposition without proof is next to a failure. Paradoxically, proof would disprove Truth.

The absence of proof for Truth is compensated for by the enormity of the insights that accompanies Truth. Absolute Truth beggars proof. Consider how the three truths of the Special Theory of Relativity gained coherence instead of being three weird facts. Systemic Truths are connected, so consistency and scope confound received notions of evidence.

Connections
Turning to a positive trait, Truth is strong on connections. This has been demonstrated by the Special Theory of Relativity. The individual—nation relationship is the cornerstone of Idealism and it is all about connections.

No Meaning
Absolute Truth has no meaning. The absence of meaning in absolute relationships is not significant.

Meaning exists between dialectical relationships. Meaning augments truth and through connotations truth accumulates sentiments. Absolute Truth is based on reciprocals. Reciprocals have no meaning.

No Emotion
An aspect of the Absolute that could be overlooked is the absence of emotion. There is no way that emotion can connect with the Absolute. There is such a thing as beatific rapture that connects with the [Holy] Spirit, and lucky you if you know of it, but that is removed from mundane emotion.

Meaning connects emotion to truth and dualistic cultures use emotion to implant ideas rather than using reason. It is impossible to use emotion to understand Truth.

Normality
From no emotion, we transition to an important topic. Normality is a first cousin of Truth. Who gets emotional about normality? – No-one. And no-one can reach Truth via emotion because Truth has no emotional resonance.

Try to define normality. The inability of dialectic to define normality divulges dialectical partiality. Normality is aligned with Truth, while dialectic is constantly ‘relative’. Synonyms for ‘partial and relative’ are ‘biased and unbalanced’.

Normality is mystical. You may intuit normality but you cannot rationalise it. Dialectic is too partial [relative] to know normality. Logic is required to elicit normality, but when found, normality does not have its own ‘voice’. Normality is not a fully-formed concept. Normality is an abbreviated version of logic that serves as a test for logic, i.e. “Is this logical conclusion, normal?”.

It would be wonderful if we could articulate normality because then there would be no need of ethics. In case you had been fooled, ethics is not normality.

Reality
If normality had a ‘voice’ it would join logic and mysticism in explaining reality. Metaphysical reality is connected ‘ordinariness’. Once relevant parts are connected, nothing becomes special. For dialectic, reality is parts and everything is special. Dialectic recognises individual parts and each part is separately the subject of its attention.

Is reality connected or disconnected? Common-sense says reality is connected, though dialectic cannot see it. Logic is connections and once a metaphysical whole is understood it is appreciated that dialectic is an impoverished view of the world.

I will come back to the topic of normality.

Next: A short essay will detail two more features of non-duality, then I begin to take duality apart.

All these generative dichotomies are without antitheses. For example, what is the opposite of male—female, capitalism—socialism, etc. [Do not offer male—male and female—female and expect to be taken seriously. The qualifier is “existential”.] There are no antitheses to the above and this is why existential dichotomies are absolute and unassailable.

Idealism presents a closed system. A closed system is not exposed to reductio ad absurdum. The ‘reductio’ is a method of disproving a proposition by showing inevitable consequences are absurd. Dialectic is an open-ended system, prone to reductio ad absurdum. An example is belief in equality. It is necessary for liberals to believe in equality as an absolute because their version of democracy is based on equality. What is the end of equality? Are we in fact equal?

Dimension
Logic employs two dichotomies, simultaneously. Thus, Truths begin with two dimensions, enlarge to three dimensions to explain society and individuals, then with the addition of teleology, build to four-dimensions to provide the theory of culture.

As the physical world has dimension, so too the intellectual world. Perception of reality as interconnected and faceted dispenses with need of proof. You don’t need proof to know Truth is superior to objectivity.

If you were the great architect of creation, would you use dialectic to make it all happen? Would you work with a linear, one-dimensional system to create the archetypal individual? What would you use to animate your being? Or would you give your archetype at least three-dimensions and make each parameter a reciprocal so each facet of behaviour was dynamic? Check out how I reckon the Reasoning and design behind creation works.

Next time. The devaluing of duality begins with problems inherent to objective truth.

These dichotomies are like the salt in a bowl of soup. If you replace the soup with water, and season it with salt, it won't do anyone much good except perhaps someone who is very thirsty. And even he won't appreciate the salt.

What I'm trying to tell you is that your current reasoning doesn't extend beyond the formulation of definitions. Where you attempt to extend it beyond definitions, you fail because you are trying to make the *definitions* do the job for you instead of thinking about them in relation to your experiences of everything under the sun. This is a common mistake for people who are confident they can understand a subject/issue (a language, or the history of a war) very quickly - they prefer to repeat or formulate *descriptions* that make sense in a superficial, semantic way but can't be elucidated further by the impatient learner in question.

Absolute Truth is and is-not. Parts to a whole share their existence with non-existence [there is a void].

If Absolute Truth, as a whole, both is and is not, then it's parts are so as well. But if this is true, then each part can be said to be both a part and not a part of the Absolute Truth, and thus the Absolute Truth itself is both composed of and devoid of any/all parts. If this is true, then the Absolute Truth both is and is not the Absolute Truth. And to the extent the Absolute Truth is not the Absolute Truth, to that same extend must there be *another* Absolute Truth which must also both be and not be....and so on until you start seeing the Moon Man waiting for you atop the stairway to Valhalla.

In light of the above, I contend that the Absolute Truth is a dried up rat turd.

I will ignore your opening analogy because it does not connect. Metaphysics is about immanent Truths. You cannot make this analogy because appearances and immanence are so different.

You seem not to be aware that there is a fully systematised metaphysic behind my statements. It is convenient for you to ignore my earlier thread where I substantiated my logic with reference to the Special Theory of Relativity and in my next essay I joined I. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reasoning to my logic. I have done the hard yards. Scientific support for metaphysical logic and common cause with Kant is not to be dismissed.

Consequently I love this bit:

… they prefer to repeat or formulate *descriptions* that make sense in a superficial, semantic way but can't be elucidated further by the impatient learner in question.

Well done, you have called me – a definitive Idealist no-less – superficial. How many degrees of abstraction have you plumbed?

I have, and will again present, a teleology essay, but I will not do ontology on this thread. To do it properly I would have to copy off all of the first two chapters, diagrams included. Hence I am obliged to ‘talk around the subject’. I have my credentials as above, I make explicit declarations and I give you opportunities to be specific, but instead you accuse me of “formulating descriptions”. Clearly it is a crime. Come-on jupiviv, put some meat on your criticism. How about you get a copy of the ebook and get down to some serious criticism.

Now to your specific protest. In overview you are a reductionist who thinks that once you have parts as pieces, it is all over for Truth.

The parts that constitute the existent part of a Truth are all connected. You will find this to be true from the portion of the book that is free. Consequent your lineal argument falls apart from the second half of the second sentence.

“… and thus the Absolute Truth itself is both composed of and devoid of any/all parts.”

Existent and non-existent are inseparably combined because of the nature of the existential dichotomies. You clearly only know how to think dualistically, and thus existent and non-existent are separate in your way of thinking, and the non-existent is destroying the existent.

Then you begin the third sentence, “If this is true …” Stop. The second sentence is wrong. But I do enjoy the way you extrapolate to the moon – very dualistic.

I’ll ignore the last line because I appreciate that you have clearly thought hard with the wrong system of reasoning. Please come back.

To go straight to the point, the key question for philosophy’s evolution is, “Can dialectic detect its relativity?” – No. It takes logic and Truth to demonstrate truth is relative. The relativity of truth is suspected these days, but truth trying to find consummate truth about itself is hopeless. Relief from relativity can only be achieved by the transcendence of truth, and transcendence required time, dialectical movement, teleology and ontology.

As previously explained, absolute Truth is totally divorced from truth. Truth rests on reciprocals, so relative truths are not of interest to Idealism. Also, as said, Idealism is not bothered by proof for Truth, so proving truth is relative has no priority. The relativity of truth is implicit to Truth establishing it stands four-square in its command of reality. In particular, the relativity of truth is implicit to the relativity of ideology, [as some Readers may have discovered from Figure 1.1 in the freely available part of my ebook], and hence truth is not worth the candle.

This would be a short essay if I ended here with my principle criticism, so more commentary follows.

People appreciate a bit of scepticism, but I am not doing scepticism. I do real damage to convention because I have something with which to replace it. F. Nietzsche is appreciated for his criticisms of ethics, but he changed nothing because he did not get to the root of the problem and he had no alternative to offer. While I share his disenchantment with ethics, this essay is about hopeless, humble truth. I cannot eradicate it, and nor should I, but I can reduce its status.

Has anyone tried to assemble an absolute Truth out of truths? With truth there is always the prospect of an unexpected, inconvenient truth coming along to wreck the endeavour, because truth is not obviously connected to other truths of its kind. The ‘independence’ of truth causes oversight. “Oh, I did not see that consequence”, is a refrain that follows single-minded-ness.

Unanticipated consequences arise from truth’s open-ended-ness. One-dimensional, single minded-ness advances along a line of reasoning, going therefore … therefore … therefore. Injudicious, one-track minds minds are apt to see advantages and be blinkered about hindrances, because their thought pattern is beguiling.

Communism was an attempt to be politically and intellectually absolute. Fascism was straight-out absolutism. Catholicism and Islam consider themselves absolute. These ideologies and religions would not / will not entertain contrary viewpoints. Their faith in the ‘truth and righteousness’ of their cause realised history as we know it. There are two fatal flaws in having absolute convictions about truth and righteousness. “No cause is a true cause” – there is more to reality than its truths. Secondly, righteousness is based on ethical conviction and ethics are illusions because goodness does not exist. Goodness and truth are an unholy mix of an illusion and a relativity.

When truths are assembled, they ‘mill-around’ because coherence and connection are not attributes of truth. Assembled truths are no more than “a case / an argument / a contention”. They lack existential conclusiveness. This point is illustrated by the question, “What is civil society?” There is no objective answer. The answer involves relationships and connections, the wholeness of which are removed from objective perception.

Returning to the errors inherent to being one-dimensional, truth as a one dimensional “underlings” cannot access absolute Ideas and their dimension. Since culture is 4-dimensional it is entirely understandable that 1-dimensional truth cannot grasp this reality. When truth fails to serve, dualists employ something more objectionable: ethics.

Since duality is only 1-dimensional, this fact affirms the popular conviction that truth is relative, which begs the question, “Relative in what?” “What are the parameters to which truth is a shuttlecock?” Objectivity cannot grasp the parameters of existence because it cannot access immanence. Existential parameters are reciprocals, not truths, and thus there is no connection, no point of contact, nothing in common. This means that civilised discussion between earnest participants finishes up going around and around. Objective truths will be strewn through-out the conversation and then eventually someone will ask, “Are we missing something here?” – Yes, a metaphysical overview.

Knowledge is gained by contrast, so the nature of objective truth is comprehended by knowledge of metaphysical Truth. Consciousness then takes two lessons: Truth does not have to be proven for knowledge to be gained about the nature of objectivity; and Truth does not have to be proven for Idealism to take logic off dialectic.

The bulwarks of truth are proof and meaning. They affirm truth and make truth appear substantial. Then along comes Truth and the news that truth is not synonymous with reality. It is only a part of reality and not important to Truth. Here is truth and its attributes that, with ethics, built a civilisation, and now those ideas are wrecking the planet, just as philosophy gains new relevance.

Next. A four-part denial of ethics. I have destroyed ethics. I may add a fifth part.

Rod wrote:I will ignore your opening analogy because it does not connect. Metaphysics is about immanent Truths. You cannot make this analogy because appearances and immanence are so different.

I wasn't talking about immanent truths themselves, but your approach to and perception of those. I clarified that later in the next paragraph.

You seem not to be aware that there is a fully systematised metaphysic behind my statements.

Metaphysic (as opposed to metaphysics) *means* a system of metaphysics! In any case I do recognise the system but don't see any great value in it, because you place more value on the system itself than on what you claim it describes.

Come-on jupiviv, put some meat on your criticism.

I did, by quoting a statement from your essay or whatever it is and showing the fallacy in it.

Existent and non-existent are inseparably combined because of the nature of the existential dichotomies.

Either they are inseparably combined and impossible to distinguish from each other, or they are not combined and contradistinct. If something combines them, then it is existent. If they are not combined, then the aforementioned something is non-existent. Therefore, Absolute Truth both combines and separates existence and non-existence by being itself a combination of existence and non-existence.

I don't want a combination of existence and non-existence. I think I'll hold on to the dried up rat turd if you don't mind.

Rod: As previously explained, absolute Truth is totally divorced from truth. Truth rests on reciprocals, so relative truths are not of interest to Idealism. Also, as said, Idealism is not bothered by proof for Truth, so proving truth is relative has no priority. The relativity of truth is implicit to Truth establishing it stands four-square in its command of reality. In particular, the relativity of truth is implicit to the relativity of ideology, [as some Readers may have discovered from Figure 1.1 in the freely available part of my ebook], and hence truth is not worth the candle.

Rod, you speak of relative truth as if it is absolute, clearly a contradiction. Truth is always absolute. Which means it is not truth that rests on reciprocals, truth is singular, rather, it is wrong view of consciousness of relative selves that 'rests' on (depends on) reciprocals.

Wrong view of existence of a self in relation to other selves is caused by wrong view of bodies/minds being positioned subjectively or objectively in time and space. Which in turn causes wrong view of consciousness to assume my thoughts (interpreted erroneously as 'my truths') are in relation to-relative to-in relationship with your thoughts, your truths, or in the context of ethics, my truth of good and evil is in relation to your truth of good and evil.

Wrong view of relatively positioned selves sharing relative truths is corrected to right view of absolute individual consciousness when one enters the silence of thought (the mystical experience of consciousness of the whole). Here, once the initial bliss of peace of the absence of relativism passes, one realizes that the spirit or will of consciousness is not a self or a connection of selves or a thing or a connection of things, instead speaks and acts of its true nature, willing/causing whole or absolute things into existence. What this means is that it is the release of belief in self (bodies in time and space) that causes consciousness to transcend relativism into the existential or ontological view of being whole or absolute, not the dualistic-relative joining or combining or synthesizing of things as proposed by the metaphysic of absolute idealism. It is the 'ism' in idealism that is the giveaway that it is not of the absolute, but instead, is an analysis of the absolute.

As for ethics, they belong to wrong view of I (consciousness) of the spatial subjective-objective-relative self, "my good or evil thoughts ('my truths') in relation to your good or evil thoughts ('your truths')". In contrast, the I (consciousness) of the eternal and infinite absolute, having transcended wrong view of the relativity of good and evil, is not conscious of morals and ethics.

In summary, synthesis of things or truths into a whole by logical connection of things, how I interpret your metaphysic of absolute idealism, is wrong view. Why? Because consciousness of absolute idealism desires to make or create a whole of things as if the whole of things is not 'already' the whole of things. Is not a tree, a tree? Is not a store, a store? And is not the eye/I that sees and says 'tree' and 'store' inseparable from the seeing and saying of 'tree' and 'store'?

Hi jupiviv and Pam. Thanks to you both, but it is awfully hard to figure what you are saying.

Beginning with jup. and the piece that starts: “Metaphysic (as opposed to metaphysics)”

If this is a sincere comment I am left with the impression that you cannot do metaphysics.

In regards to “meat on your criticism”. No, get an example from my book. Use the male—female relationship or capitalism—socialism relationship to make your point. Your dualistic wanderings are not amusing and that is my comment in regards to the rest of what you opine.

Pam

Substantiate your opening statement, i.e. “Rod, you speak of relative truth as if it is absolute, clearly a contradiction.”

The rest of your opening paragraph is confused. Relative truths do not join to make Truth.

The rest of your post is your usual doctrine, and thus it is your mysticism. I do not reject your mysticism, but it is poorly expressed. Try to avoid mentioning “relative truths” because they do not synthesise. I am far more willing to entertain your utterances than jup’s because I know where they spring from, but I cannot penetrate your prose. Take this statement:

In contrast, the I (consciousness) of the eternal and infinite absolute, having transcended wrong view of the relativity of good and evil, is not conscious of morals and ethics.

I have an idea of what is eternal and infinite. But “the relativity of good and evil”. Pam goodness does not exist, so that statement is babble. If you know what goodness is, make yourself famous by explicating it.

Your last paragraph begins, “In summary, synthesis of things or truths …” I don’t synthesise truths, so you are not trying to connect. You are just banging your drum. And the rest of your last paragraph is ramblings.

Rod wrote:Beginning with jup. and the piece that starts: “Metaphysic (as opposed to metaphysics)”

If this is a sincere comment I am left with the impression that you cannot do metaphysics.

Well I am getting the impression that you are presumably too busy to actually read what others say before responding to them.

In regards to “meat on your criticism”. No, get an example from my book. Use the male—female relationship or capitalism—socialism relationship to make your point. Your dualistic wanderings are not amusing and that is my comment in regards to the rest of what you opine.

Rod wrote:The ebook is $5.00 so I guess we will not have the advantage of your informed criticism.

Unfortunately you're right. It's nothing personal, but I won't trade in wisdom. By the way, you are mistaken if you think any of the very few members who occasionally frequent this board will buy your book. If what you are attempting to do here is - even in part - some sort of ad strategy, then I for one am baffled by your judgement regarding it.

I suggest remodelling your essays along themes which are attractive to the now pervasive online movement commonly called the "alt-right". You seem to have done this to an extent already with your identification of the capitalist-socialist and gender dialectics. Or maybe go the opposite route and pander to the emergent (and perhaps even more potent than the former) alt-left.

I have neither the time nor the interest in parsing so many lines of text dealing with various extensive areas of academic interest (in which I myself lack any serious interest, as I do academic philosophy in general). However, if you want to start a discussion on any specific issue/s I shall gladly participate.

Rod: The rest of your post is your usual doctrine, and thus it is your mysticism. I do not reject your mysticism, but it is poorly expressed.

I believe I understand why you have defined my wisdom as mysticism, let’s see how close I am. You believe I present a doctrine of mysticism because I do not present an analysis of ‘what goes on behind the scenes’ of idea making or creation or causation, choose your term. That I have not yet penetrated the ‘veil’ of the Absolute Order of ‘God’s Mind’ to see with my own mind’s eye how it works, and that if I should do so, I would then have the ability to reveal absolute truths. If I am right about my understanding of why you cast me in the role of “mystic-preacher/teacher” rather than “absolute-truth-teacher”, then you have hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head.

Try to avoid mentioning “relative truths” because they do not synthesise.

I mentioned relative truths because you mention them frequently. A recent example: "Relative truths do not join to make Truth." I am using your language to show you that relative truths don't join or synthesize because relative truths do not exist. This is what I was showing you when I said “Rod, you speak of relative truth as if it is absolute [that it exists], clearly a contradiction.”

I am far more willing to entertain your utterances than jup’s because I know where they spring from,

Clearly you do not. Which is why you call my wisdom 'utterances' 'prose', 'babble', 'banging' and 'ramblings'. A fuzzy, distracting communication technique on your part, all this name-calling, but at least I know I am not getting through. Perhaps next time, perhaps never. :-)

Take this statement:

Quote:movingalways: In contrast, the I (consciousness) of the eternal and infinite absolute, having transcended wrong view of the relativity of good and evil, is not conscious of morals and ethics.

I have an idea of what is eternal and infinite. But “the relativity of good and evil”. Pam goodness does not exist, so that statement is babble. If you know what goodness is, make yourself famous by explicating it.

Read my words again. I did not imply or say ‘goodness’ exists, just the opposite. I’ll put it another way. “Good” or “evil” belong to wrong view of relativity or relative truths, therefore do not exist. For example: A tree exists. A tree in relation to a rock does not exist. A good (in relation to an evil) tree does not exist.

Your last paragraph begins, “In summary, synthesis of things or truths …” I don’t synthesise truths, so you are not trying to connect. You are just banging your drum. And the rest of your last paragraph is ramblings.

You are right, I am not trying to connect, I am judging right view and wrong view. Let's cut to the chase. Are you saying, as I believe you are saying that you have, to use your word, 'penetrated' The Absolute and have come to give us a diagram or diagrams of the Truth of its mechanics/schematics, 'how it works?' If so, I judge your belief you have 'cracked the God Code' to be deluded and can tell you why. If not, then I have grossly misunderstood your purpose for coming here.

I believe I understand why you have defined my wisdom as mysticism, let’s see how close I am. You believe I present a doctrine of mysticism because I do not present an analysis of ‘what goes on behind the scenes’ of idea making or creation or causation, choose your term. That I have not yet penetrated the ‘veil’ of the Absolute Order of ‘God’s Mind’ to see with my own mind’s eye how it works, and that if I should do so, I would then have the ability to reveal absolute truths. If I am right about my understanding of why you cast me in the role of “mystic-preacher/teacher” rather than “absolute-truth-teacher”, then you have hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head.

Yes. Unless absolute logic is known and used, all reference to the Absolute is mysticism.

Yes, you have had a mystical experience, but to repeat easier criticisms you have not read widely to get it into context and you have not developed a means of easy communication. Whatever you are trying to say about relative truth and absolute Truth is so confused you must stop. You have not produced an explicit absolute Truth. I do not believe you have tried to find my Truths so that you can work with them, i.e. you do not do homework.

This is Part One of a five Part study of ethics that outlines the destruction of ethics. In this instalment, the point of interest is ethical relativity.

The Great Hoax

The great hoax is of course ethics. Without an a priori and without epistemic value, many cultures invent this lie to regulate behaviour.

Our acceptance of ethics is due to the shortcomings of truth. Objective truth is only a tiger in matters-empirical. In human affairs, especially politics where relativity is the norm, truth is a limp-thing that acquiesces to ethics.

At an individual level ethics performs quite well. It fails to be helpful in matters like abortion and recreational drugs, where the individual’s interests may collide with what moralistic politicians decree is socially acceptable. In politics, ethics is intolerable because its flaws are amplified. One grievous fault is ethical-relativity. Ethical-relativity became fully expressed in ideology. The great socialism versus capitalism divide and the lesser ideologies represent the full-flowering of ethics.

In contradiction to its monist origins which decree there is only one, true ethical path, the range of ideologies indicts ethics as untrue. Still, ethics is without a rival code of conduct, so it has ‘system justification’ by default. Here I will add F. Nietzsche’s condemnation. Ethics survived Nietzsche’s broadsides because he had no metaphysics to support his polemic.

Ethics is condemned by Idealism as fraudulent, but it is necessary to be even-handed about ethics rather than entirely condemnatory. Ethics are crucial to the growth of consciousness. When Truth and logic are unknown, it is necessary to have a formal body of lies, i.e. ethics. To get a grasp of the knot that is necessary lies, we need G. W. F. Hegel’s “Cunning of Reason. This Reason is absolute Reason. It is coextensive with Truth.

The doctrine of the Cunning of Reason is quite simple: We do not know the natural order, i.e. Reason, so we do our own ‘thing’. The natural order prevails and we find ourselves in a mess. There is the chance that we will learn from our mistakes and Reason will be found. Cunning of Reason introduces history as significant to our condition; we live in an intellectually active culture and teleology will deliver us from our errors. Living with error means ‘Tragedy’ is unavoidable. Hegel has some serious things to say about tragedy, i.e. the slaughter bench of history, so Idealism is realist [to use a shaky word].

Ethics has accidentally helped us find what is real. This unintentional role is best observed in ideology. Ethics is foundation-less, [a whore of an idea in fact], so any contention can use it. Every faction in a dualistic culture makes an ethical point in combination with the aspect of political economy the faction wishes to support. In this manner, we have factions presenting a mix of ethics, truths and facts. Every ideology gets something right, even fascism. It is Idealism’s role to find and synthesise authentic parts, and discard the ideals. The ideals ‘flag’ authentic parts and that is an aid.

The existence of political factions is due to metaphysical reciprocals. Reciprocals underpin different ways of seeing appearances. Ethics adhere to points of view to give the reciprocals “expression”. Expression consists of the ethics, truths and facts that constitute an ideology. They are apparent “accretions” on the concealed reciprocals. Metaphysical instincts are required to find the reciprocals and one clue is the fact that ethics are relative. If ethics are relative:
“What are they giving expression to which is more substantial than the ideology? Also, if ethics are relative:
“What immanent relationship causes ideals to forsake their monist pledge?” “What natural condition is causing ethical hypocrisy?”

Another clue is the cardinal virtue that ethics and ideologies give expression to:
“What virtue is the essence of capitalism and the essence of socialism?”

The immanent answer to these three questions lies in the same degree of abstraction as the logic of Special Relativity with which I began this thread, which implies it is beyond empirical investigation.

In political economic, the hypocrisy of ethics is helpful; only in ideology do ethics express relativity in a metaphysically useful manner. In other situations, ethics are unhelpful.

From the 1960’s forward, an Idealist could delve into ideology to find the Truth. I found Figure 1.1. The logic of political economy, in about 1976. That was the easy bit.

One-dimensional thought, that reckons knowing the difference between right and wrong is what matters, is a denial of philosophy. Existential philosophy begins with the ability to get beyond ethics into metaphysics. The elicitation of one Truth from a political scenario that churned with agitated values spells the end for ethics.

Ethics is due some credit. It is a shifty lie, but it serves as the surrogate you have, when you don’t have a clue. When the goal is transcendent Ideas, one needs ideas to be ‘in-the-game’. With ideas substituting for Ideas, tragedy is inevitable, yet the possibility of transcendence is present. When you reflect on the arrogance of the authorities who exercised their power to implement good outcomes, history is grim, and yet transcendence is realised via this nastiness.

Part Two: To accompany this theoretical piece, I will next present Teleology. It illustrates ethical relativity in history and much more because teleology is a major doctrine of Idealism.